The Madras High Court, on Thursday (July 2nd), dismissed a plea filed by former DMK Minister K Ponmudi challenging an order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Georgetown, taking cognisance of a hate speech complaint filed against him by BJP Councillor Uma Anandan. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 290]

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan dismissed the plea, effectively refusing to interfere with the private complaint filed by Anandan. The court had reserved orders on the plea on June 25th.

A detailed order copy is awaited.

The case concerns the comments made by Ponmudi against Saivism, Vaishnavism, and women. It may be noted that on April 17th, 2025, the High Court had asked the State Government to register an FIR against Ponmudi. When no FIR was registered, the court initiated suo motu proceedings, noting that Ponmudi's speech prima facie amounted to hate speech.

The court noted that there were ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 79, 196 (1)(a), 296(a), 299, and 302 of BNS 2023 and directed the Registry to initiate a suo motu case against the former Minister.

Later, the court closed the suo motu proceeding when the State informed that all the complaints had been duly investigated and closed since there was no material. While closing the suo motu case, the court gave liberty to the complainants to approach the concerned jurisdictional magistrates against the closure of complaints.

BJP's Uma Anandan later filed a complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate under Sections 196 (1)(a) [promoting enmity between different groups], Section 299 [Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class], and Section 300 [disturbing religious assembly] of the BNS. The Magistrate's court took cognisance of the complaint and issued summons after noting that there was a prima facie case and the objections raised by Ponmudi were a matter of trial.

The court had previously stayed the proceedings before the Magistrate and had dispensed with Ponmudi's appearance before the court.

Ponmudi's side raised an objection to the complaint. It was argued that the alleged speech was made in a closed-door session and Ponmudi had merely reiterated the contents of a speech made almost 50 years ago. It was argued that the offences alleged would not be attracted since there were no two groups in this case, so as to create enmity, and there was no intention to hurt the religious sentiments. It was also argued that necessary sanction was not obtained under Section 217 BNSS to lodge a complaint.

On the other hand, Anandan's side argued that the speech made by Ponmudi was to propagate the atheist ideology and an attempt to create hate against the Hindu religion in the eyes of other religions. It was also argued that while making the speech, Ponmudi was a sitting Minister whose words would be followed by the people. It was argued that persons of such stature in society should be careful of their statements. It was also argued that while Ponmudi could criticise religion, the same could not be done in a manner against law.

It was also argued that the statements made by Ponmudi were unwarranted to the event, which showed that the same were made intentionally. It was argued that the intention of the speech was to hurt the people who follow Hindu religion and to cause them psychological harm.

It was also argued that the grounds raised by Ponmudi, with respect to the validity of sanction to prosecute against him and the ingredients necessary for bringing home the alleged sections, were matters to be looked into at the time of trial and could not be gone into in the present case.

Case Title: K Ponmudi v. Uma Anandan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 290

Case No: Crl RC 645 of 2026